- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: As it turns out, no, those four methods are not abortifacient
Posted on 7/7/14 at 2:07 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
Posted on 7/7/14 at 2:07 pm to HailHailtoMichigan!
quote:
Melt day __?
0
Posted on 7/7/14 at 2:07 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
i agree i don't think it's an abortion, but that's my belief an employer paying for it has nothing to do with rights, though
It's not an abortion...
But here's the real problem here... can it be a sincerely held religious belief when there are scientific facts that state otherwise? Yes, sure, but...
I can understand "there is a God" or "Jesus saves" or "blood transfusions are evil" as religious notions that should be protected. There are no disproofs for such nonsense, so they can be held religiously.
But when somebody states that 2+2 = 5 according to his religion I don't think such nonsense was meant to be respected by the Constitution, the RFRA, or by any other piece of legislation.
Leave it to THIS crooked Court, however, to give such bullshite legitimacy.
This post was edited on 7/7/14 at 2:11 pm
Posted on 7/7/14 at 2:08 pm to Rex
Rex, DR. Law of the land anyway.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 2:09 pm to chadau79
If only there were a pill to abort this thread 
Posted on 7/7/14 at 2:10 pm to Rex
quote:
Leave it to THIS crooked Court, however, to give such bullshite legitimacy.
You mean the same crooked Supreme Court that passed Obamacare?
Posted on 7/7/14 at 2:10 pm to Rex
quote:
when somebody states that 2+2 = 5
Common Core
Posted on 7/7/14 at 2:11 pm to Rex
quote:
There are no disproofs for such nonsense,
dude... STOP.
you NEVER argue on behalf of things that can be PROVEN.
any statement to the contrary is laughable.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 2:12 pm to Rex
Rex, why do you always get so arrogant when discussing religion?
Posted on 7/7/14 at 2:12 pm to Rex
quote:
can it be a sincerely held religious belief when there are scientific facts that state otherwise?
you're comparing apples to oranges
the catholic church has attacked contraceptives as abortions, due to their religious definition of conception. it is what it is
i don't agree with it. you don't agree with it. but we are not of that religion
Posted on 7/7/14 at 2:12 pm to Rex
Carried to its logical conclusion I suppose that a company owned by a Jehovah's Witness could refuse to cover blood transfusions and Christian Scientists would have a pretty skimpy set of benefits.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 2:16 pm to Layabout
quote:
Carried to its logical conclusion I suppose that a company owned by a Jehovah's Witness could refuse to cover blood transfusions and Christian Scientists would have a pretty skimpy set of benefits.
I would have to say that the original premise from the OP has not been established as true. No supporting link has been provided.
But feel free to take this on a tangent.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 2:21 pm to Rex
quote:First off, that is factually incorrect.
and approved by the FDA affect an existing pregnancy
Not debatable.
Not disputable.
If ACOG said that, they've lost their minds. Put another way, if a pregnancy occurs with an IUD in place, I will guarantee you the pregnancy is "affected".
What likely is at play is an inane differential drawn between a fertilized egg/embryo, and uterine implantation. Insofar as HL beliefs that life begins at conception, that difference is moot.
Regardless, it impacts nary a bit legitimacy of the HL decision.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 2:21 pm to Layabout
quote:
Carried to its logical conclusion I suppose that a company owned by a Jehovah's Witness could refuse to cover blood transfusions and Christian Scientists would have a pretty skimpy set of benefits.
I'm totally okay with that.
I'll even take it further. An employer should only cover what they choose to cover since, you know, it is their property paying for the benefit.
Crazy, I know.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 2:22 pm to Rex
Posted on 7/7/14 at 2:23 pm to Rex
quote:There are not.
there are scientific facts that state otherwise
Posted on 7/7/14 at 2:24 pm to Rex
quote:
“there is no scienti?c evidence that emergency contraceptives available in the United States and approved by the FDA affect an existing pregnancy."
How's that defined, precisely? Is the group deciding that definition the final word on the issue?
This post was edited on 7/7/14 at 2:24 pm
Posted on 7/7/14 at 2:25 pm to Rex
quote:
its war on science.
You have your nerve talking about respecting science.
Rex 02/08/12:
quote:
Since the fetus is not a person in any meaningful sense of the word
Posted on 7/7/14 at 2:27 pm to Rex
quote:
war on women
Anyone stupid enough to use this term (and worse, actually believe it), is too stupid for legit response.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 2:28 pm to Rex
quote:
It's not an abortion...
Well u can call it whatever u like but the morning after pill is designed to terminate a pregnancy.
Now that u bring up the Republican War on science. What happens when scientists prove that a child can feel pain in the womb? Is it a war on all science or just certain areas specific to your cause.
Posted on 7/7/14 at 2:31 pm to SlowFlowPro
quote:
the catholic church has attacked contraceptives as abortions
Actually, it's not that the CC believes contraceptives are abortions.
It's because the CC sees contraceptives as an unnatural method which prevent what is supposed to happen naturally. When a man and woman do it, conceiving is a possible result, and the CC believes that preventing this process through unnatural methods is basically flipping the bird to God and the purpose for men and women procreating.
Or put it this way...when a man and woman tell each other "I take you for better or for worse" that includes the possibility of having a child together. Contraceptives are like saying "I take you for better but I'm not going to risk having a kid with you."
This post was edited on 7/7/14 at 2:33 pm
Page 2 of 11
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News